Wednesday, June 29, 2005

In April, police in Fairfax County, Virginia pulled over a van making an illegal u-turn. The constables soon discovered the illegal u-turn was not the only statutory violation committed by those in the van for twelve inside were illegal aliens.

After being processed by Immigration and Custom Enforcement, all eleven passengers were released and instructed to show up for final review; they were let lose onto our streets for the sake of the children and all. Unless the mother was some kind of tramp and did not know which hombre was the father, can anyone justify why every last one of them should have been allowed to go?

Furthermore, if these parents cared so much for their progeny, wouldn’t they have applied to come to this country in the proper manner? Regular, real Americans have had their own children snatched over less serious infractions of the law.

Needless to say, none of those released with the promise to return did so. But one does not have to be a PhD to figure out that was going to happen. With the drivel filling the minds of the overeducated these days, it’s probably an insight available only to those whose minds have not been corrupted in this manner.

Unfortunately, the poison of such diseased thinking is not confined to the otherwise unemployable in the ranks of media, government, and academia. Many average Americans are more than eager in promoting the surrender of this great nation.

One deluded soul posting on the WJLA.com messageboard commenting on the story posted, “If you ‘processed’ all the ‘illegals’ out of the United States, we would have economic collapse....Who the heck picks your fruit and vegetables? Cleans up your building? Cleans restrooms? Cooks your fast food? Does the dirty work that no one else wants to do? Many Americans have grown too fat and entitled to do the physical and ‘menial’ wok. Selfish people...afraid you won’t be able to afford that big fat SUV and wide-screen television?”

Such comments were probably made by one of those selfish people who has never done any menial work in their life. Usually, those clamoring for unfettered borders are the ones that have “too much” ---- if we are now going to hurl invectives against the blessings of liberty --- and want to ensure that the good life remains the exclusive province of the elite by importing laborers for the purposes of driving down wages and increasing their own wealth and power.

Instead of complaining about the laziness and girth of the average American (as if from appearances the average immigrant has missed too many meals), perhaps we should be asking how many toilets the likes of George Bush, John Kerry, or Ted Kennedy have scrubbed over the course of their lifetimes since the only thing they ever did to be entitled to their vast resources was spring from their parents loins. Hillary Clinton acted like it was revelation handed down from on high when she realized janitors are people too.

It’s not so much Americans have grown “too entitled” to do menial labor but rather don’t see why wages should be driven down for the work that they do. For the elites do not allow the invasion of the United States to proceed unabated to elevate the status of lamentable Third World peons but rather to drag down the living standards of all people to make it easy to rule over all of us as subjects of the New World Order.

Maybe if most forms of immigration were abolished and the proper steps taken to interdict transborder vagrancy, perhaps the elites would be forced to take the hit in their own pockets rather than the pockets of the average American. John Kerry and George Bush can afford to alter their lifestyles a lot more than can John Q. Public.

Often delicate economic relationships are thrown out of whack through undue government intervention and involvement. Multinationalists like to remind the American people of the need for an uninhibited free market in terms of eliminating trade barriers and subsidies to maintain global prosperity. Thus, if undue government meddling causes socioeconomic disequilibrium, then why shouldn’t this principle apply to welfare and domestic assistance programs buffeting those suffering from self-inflicted indolence?

If welfare was to be abolished for all but the physically incapacitated, the lazy would be forced to take the jobs currently occupied by immigrant labor. Fear of starvation might prove to be a powerful entrepreneurial motivator.

Meddling do-gooders will gasp, “But what of the children born to the underprivileged?” In much the same manner as a looming specter of malnutrition will inspire those with a rumbling tummy to take jobs they might not want to otherwise, the realization that one won’t be getting an additional check for each new mouth they bring into the world will cause a case of erectile dysfunction even Viagra couldn’t cure.

The United States did not have these out-of-control wedlock births before the advent of out-of-control social programs. “But won’t innocent children starve?” those placing their misguided conceptions of compassion above commonsense ask.

Not necessarily. Generations got by on what most would turn their noses up at today. So long as the “poor” have a can of soup from somewhere like a Save-A-Lot or an Aldi’s and a good set of second-hand clothes from the local thrift-store, they don’t really have too many complaints that the government or even the church should be concerned about. One of the most diabolical things ever done in devising these programs for the able-bodied was naming them “entitlements” since those unwilling to provide for themselves aren’t entitled to as much as they’ve been duped into believing.

Integrity of the nation’s borders is one of government’s few legitimate functions. If those holding public office fail in fulfilling this sacred obligation as a result of their own outright stupidity or blatant intentional neglect, perhaps those addicted to the benefits of authority should no longer be permitted to retain such lofty positions.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Despite their vast wisdom, one of the errors the Founding Fathers allowed to creep into the Constitution was the principle of eminent domain. According to this concept, government is allowed to step in and snatch your property if it can justify doing so in the public interest.

Often this form of despotism is invoked for the completion of projects claimed to be in the public interest such as the expansion of highways or the renovation of properties the owners have allowed to deteriorate. However, the Dishonorable Court has ruled the town of New London, Connecticut is allowed to seize and destroy a number of homes in the name of community betterment to placate a rapacious developer in league with a pharmaceutical company.

The typical Communist-wing of the Supreme Court consisting of Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens, and Breyer sided with the further amalgamation of power into the hands of the elite by noting local officials, not federal judges, know better which projects will benefit the COMMUNITY (the new god in the contemporary civic religion). And speaking of God and community, interesting, isn't it, how the reasoning of these jurists that local officials know better does not apply when it comes to determining whether or not the Ten Commandments have a place in public (but then again I suppose "Thou shalt not steal" would interfere with taking homes away from people that do not want to sell them) and in the administration of neighborhood schools.

In a moment of rare insight for the aging hag, Sandra Day O'Conor noted in her dissent to the ruling, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random...The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." Needless to say it won't be the Bushes, Kennedys, of the Trumps getting kicked out of their palatial estates but rather the common man whose sole purpose is coming more and more to be to serve the needs of his masters in the New World Order.

And where will those no longer fit to be seen in public be warehoused once these beautification projects are complete since the average worker can no longer afford real estate in these areas and is increasingly being chastised by these same bureaucracies for reliance upon the automobile? In FEMA administered work and relocation camps no doubt.

The courts have all but abolished the right to own firearms and now the right to retain one's home unmolested. How much longer until they require us to relinquish our very lives and families as well?

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Monday, June 20, 2005

Concern has been expressed regarding Microsoft's willingness to censor blogs originating in China.

While the news is disturbing to anyone disposed to innate liberties, the policy is not all that different than the one employed here in the United States though in less aggressive form.

Towards the end of 2004 when they released their blogging interface, I briefly signed up for one of the Microsoft sites. Not caring for the overall look of the site, I did not keep it very long.

However, even more unattractive than the sites aesthetic limitations were its linguistic parameters that did not permit words such as "Nazi" and even "pornography" or "slut" if memory serves me correctly. Whether this policy has changed since then, I do not know.

Who is Microsft to be the ones to determine the propriety of these non-profane terms in a nation that prides itself on freedom of expression? Are his untold billions no longer enough to satisfy Bill Gates?

Often the rise of the Internet is heralded as a technological development that will unshackle the individual from the oppression of being told what to think and what ideas are fit for public exchange. However, in those regimes where freedom does not exist, this technology can be used to maintain the control of the elite or, in nation's where the people have a bit for latitude in how they are permitted to live their lives, allow for a more subtle form of social manipulation by fostering a culture of intellectual boredom and mental tedium.

Monday, June 13, 2005

Media leftists are decrying pictures of Saddam in his BVD’s. They insist such treatment is a testament to the lechery of the West and supposedly brutal tactics used by his captors.

But in reality, the response tells us more about those doing the complaining than about the incarceration policies of the U.S. military.

While most of us would be embarrassed if pictures of ourselves in our knickers made it into the local paper, we need to remember for just a second who Saddam Hussein is and the lifestyle that he has led.

American-hating liberals and their pet savages in the Middle East expect us to have sympathy for this hemorrhoid on the rear-end of humanity that hacked apart his enemies, shipped them back in little bags to their families, and expected to be paid for doing them the favor. To prisoners under his regime, having their pictures taken in their undies would have been a good day.

If anything, Saddam’s calendar layout should be seen as proof as to the beneficence of his caretakers. The cameras are --- as we are told of those cataloging our every move --- there for his own good.

If the devotees of tyranny and terror prefer, we can always have the cameras removed. Then if we’re lucky, Saddam will do us a favor and pull a Heinrich Himmler or Herman Goerring.

At the end of World War II, Adolf Hitler committed suicide in part out of fear of being put on public display. Today it seems the gullibility of the viewing public could be the caged dictator’s best friend.

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

A Texas teen has been given a life sentence for helping his girlfriend --- who wanted an abortion --- kill their unborn twins.

While this scumbag is where he now belongs, because his tramp can't be prosecuted because of her right to an abortion, one is forced to ask is he being sent up the river for fetalcide or for practicing medicine without a license.

To be consistent, shouldn't this sorry excuse for a man be heralded as a hero by the feminists because of his unwavering obedience and devotion to a wench whose only standard is her own murderous brand of existentialism?

What about the man's right of choice? Radical feminists will claim he had one before the act of copulation.

But what about the woman? Unless she was raped, the same applies to her as well. To say otherwise is to assume the weaker sex is possessed of an ignorance beyond any misconceptions rampant about females even in previous centuries.

Others will insist that stay-at-home abortions are just too dangerous for the "health" of the mother. But frankly, professional baby killers don't exactly have a spotless reputation in protecting the lives of their pregnant accomplices either.

The interest of the state comes down not so much to the protection of innocent human life as it is to monopolize the lucrative tradecraft of this diabolical industry.

Friday, June 03, 2005

It has been suggested that certain interpretations of the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform could authorize the government to crackdown on bloggers by equating this new form of expression with contributing to a political campaign. This concern shows that this legislation is more about suppressing the free speech of average Americans than about curtailing the influence of big money on the political process.

Despite causing the powerbrokers of the mainstream media to shake in their $500 suits for fear of losing their stranglehold over the flow of information and thus the minds of the public, a personal blog is nothing whatsoever like a campaign contribution. If anything, this new medium is more the electronic equivalent of a sign posted on your front lawn or a bumper sticker plastered across the rear of your car.

Maybe Darth McCain would like to outlaw those forms of communication also while we are at it. While we are at it, why don’t we also outlaw private telephone conversations and individual e-mails of a political nature; wouldn’t want personal relationships to take precedence over the edicts handed down from on high by our glorious leaders.

Such a proposal would not be too hard to implement. ECHELON already scours electronic communications for threats of terrorism; simply expand the search parameters to include subversive exchanges of a politically persuasive nature as well.

Since the nation can no longer afford to let politics distract from the all-important work of the state and its never-ending expansion, maybe we should just go ahead and abolish elections while we’re at it since we cannot allow unqualified opinions to take precedence over the postulations of credentialed experts.

This is, after all, the destination of which Campaign Finance Reform is a mere first step. In what is nothing less than a display of the Jedi mindtrick that would put Darth Vader to shame, the senior Sith from Arizona has duped the American people into thinking his version of the Enabling Act is essential to the survival of the Old Republic. The measure will in fact turn this nation into an empire.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.” The McCain Finance Law stipulates what kind of political speech can be enunciated and when it is appropriate. Thus by definition this act abridges speech by placing constraints of propriety upon it.

It does not take an Ivy League graduate to see this law violates the Constitution. It appears only those avoiding such dens of sophistry are capable of grasping such a simple truth since those at the highest levels of government indoctrinated in such elitist settings have done little to oppose the statute.

Many in Congress are so enamored by the law it has been nicknamed the “Incumbent Protection Act” since it makes it more difficult for a grassroots uprising to unseat unresponsive representatives. More interested in their own stash of pornography and what the Eurotrash in the Hague thinks of them, the Supreme Court fumbled the gavel by upholding the McCain/Feingold legislation.

Of course, big media has no problem with the law --- nor this interpretation of it --- since the law stifles the primary competition of the outdated dinosaurs of mass communication such as special interest talk radio, direct mail, and now potentially ezines and blogs.

Then there is President Bush; what can we say about him? Typical of the spineless vacillation plaguing many Republicans today, the President initially said he was opposed to the bill but eventually signed it into law anyway.

McCain Campaign Finance Reform has nothing whatsoever with democratizing the political process but rather is a sledgehammer designed to impose an uniformity of thought so the elite to maintain its monopoly of opinion. All curtailments to liberty are a cause for concern, but the logistics necessary to enforce this scheme would be particularly unsettling.

For if government beancounters are going to enforce prohibitions against partisan speech so many days out from an election, doesn’t that mean the government will have to know of the existence of the blogs beforehand. As in the case of political action committees and the like, does this mean opinionated websites will have to register with government, essentially requiring a license to blog?

Eventually, such thought regulation will be extended to all forms of communication and the exchange of ideas. Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute hypothesizes that, combined with the McCain/Leiberman Anti-Gunshow law that requires all vendors at firearm exhibitions to register with the government regardless of whether or not they sell guns, Campaign Finance Reform could make it against the law to sell or dispense unapproved political literature at these gatherings, thus proving once and for all that without a healthy respect of the Second Amendment the First Amendment is soon to follow.

“Big deal. We don’t care about gun nuts and computer geeks.” Maybe so, but the funny thing is that revolutions have a tendency of consuming their own and the very thing you intend to use to squash your opposition can be turned around and used against you.

Certain liberals, progressive, or whatever else the leftist rabble insists on calling themselves this week look favorably upon Campaign Finance Reform as a way to silence conservatives and “elevate the public dialogue” as elitists like to say. However, their celebration should be tempered by the realization that their is nothing keeping the law from being used to censor their own pet causes.

Back during the last election, Citizen’s United accused Michael Moore of violating Campaign Finance Reform because this slovenly Hutt hoped this propaganda would influence the outcome of the election. But do we really want the courts to put an end to the speech we disagree with?

For if we do, it won’t be long until we find ourselves on the other end of a lawsuit trying to do the same thing to us.